Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math Torsion blocks

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Just wondering, why are torsion blocks always non-epimorphic?
>
> You get a val with common factors, which therefore seems to be giving
> each scale step more than once. In fact, there is a group, but the
> group isn't cyclic.
>
Thanks. Is that like the Z/2Z torsion group then? And not to change the
subject (too much) but what kind of software would I need to run Polya
polynomials? (I'll need to find the formulas, I think Jon Wild posted
them on this newsgroup). If Octave or Python could do it, great.
Unfortunately I'm not much of a programmer, but I'd like to at least
get good at using Math software. I also have a free trial of Matlab
but haven't had time to try it yet.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Paul G Hjelmstad <paul_hjelmstad@allianzlife.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> > <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just wondering, why are torsion blocks always non-epimorphic?
> > >
> > > Paul Hj
> >
> > Because the small intervals that occur regularly in these blocks
all
> > belong to the kernel; epimorphic blocks only have 1:1s, and no
other
> > intervals, that belong to the kernel.
> >
>
> Missed this one. So for example, (81/80)^2 is in the kernel of a
non-
> epimorphic torsion-block?

More likely, it's 81/80 itself that would provide an example of an
interval in the torsional block which belongs to the kernel. If the
torsion causes a tripling or quadrupling, though, then (81/80)^2
might appear as an interval in the block as well.

🔗Paul G Hjelmstad <paul_hjelmstad@allianzlife.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> > > <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering, why are torsion blocks always non-epimorphic?
> > > >
> > > > Paul Hj
> > >
> > > Because the small intervals that occur regularly in these
blocks
> all
> > > belong to the kernel; epimorphic blocks only have 1:1s, and no
> other
> > > intervals, that belong to the kernel.
> > >
> >
> > Missed this one. So for example, (81/80)^2 is in the kernel of a
> non-
> > epimorphic torsion-block?
>
> More likely, it's 81/80 itself that would provide an example of an
> interval in the torsional block which belongs to the kernel. If the
> torsion causes a tripling or quadrupling, though, then (81/80)^2
> might appear as an interval in the block as well.
>
I see. It's an unwanted duplication of a comma. So a PB with CS
is epimorphic?

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Paul and Paul,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:

> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
>
> [Paul H.]
> > > ... So for example, (81/80)^2 is in the kernel of a
> > > non-epimorphic torsion-block?
> >
> > More likely, it's 81/80 itself that would provide an
> > example of an interval in the torsional block which
> > belongs to the kernel. If the torsion causes a tripling
> > or quadrupling, though, then (81/80)^2 might appear
> > as an interval in the block as well.
>
> I see. It's an unwanted duplication of a comma.

That's the right idea ... but "unwanted" is not
necessarily the best qualifier to use to describe this.
What happens in a torsion-block is simply that the
commas which describe the mapping produce duplicate maps.

For example:

Let's say we want to map 5-limit JI (i.e., 2-3-5-space,
with 2/1 as the identity interval) to 36-edo.

If we try to use the "best-fit" mapping, meaning that we
map the 3/2 ratio to 21 degrees (= 700 cents) and the 5/4
ratio to 12 degrees (= 400 cents), we get a torsion-block,
because all of the 5-limit JI pitches will map to a 12-tone
subset of 36-edo which is exactly the same as 12-edo, and
the other 24 notes of 36-edo will never correspond to any
of the 5-limit JI pitches. The Tenny-Minkowski-reduced-basis
pair of unison-vectors (i.e., "commas") which will create
this torsion-block are:

2,3,5-monzo ........ ratio ....... ~cents
------------------------------------------
[7 0, -3> ......... 128/125 ...... 41.059
[-12 12, -3> ... 531441/512000 ... 64.518

The monzo notation of the larger unison-vector
shows you right away where the torsion comes from:
[-12 12, -3> = ([-4 4, -1>) * 3. Thus, it is a
"triple-syntonic-comma".

However, if we deliberately use a different mapping,
where the 3/2 is still mapped to 21 degrees of 36-edo,
but the 5/4 ratio maps to 11 degrees (= 367.&.2/3 cents),
we can get the full 36-tone set mapped uniquely to
5-limit JI. Thus we get a "normal" periodicity-block
instead of a torsion-block, and the torsion is removed.
The TM-reduced-basis unison-vectors for this mapping are:

2,3,5-monzo ........ ratio ....... ~cents
------------------------------------------
[1 -5, 3> ......... 250/243 ....... 49.166
[-17 2, 6> ..... 140625/131072 ... 121.792

Many theorists will fail to see the value in creating
a tuning like this, with a whopping big "unison-vector"
that's larger than a 12-edo semitone ... but i can tell
you from personal experience that it does create an
emulation of 5-limit JI that's audibly recognizable
as such, at least enough so that many important harmonic
principles which apply to 5-limit JI also apply to this
way of using 36-edo.

So, "unwanted" is correct from the point of view of
wanting to be able to produce a mapping of the complete
edo set. But if you're OK with using a subset and still
claiming that your tuning is really the superset (which
probably *isn't* the right way to go about things anyway)
... then you might want to qualify it a different way.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Paul G Hjelmstad <paul_hjelmstad@allianzlife.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and Paul,
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [Paul H.]
> > > > ... So for example, (81/80)^2 is in the kernel of a
> > > > non-epimorphic torsion-block?
> > >
> > > More likely, it's 81/80 itself that would provide an
> > > example of an interval in the torsional block which
> > > belongs to the kernel. If the torsion causes a tripling
> > > or quadrupling, though, then (81/80)^2 might appear
> > > as an interval in the block as well.
> >
> > I see. It's an unwanted duplication of a comma.
>
>
> That's the right idea ... but "unwanted" is not
> necessarily the best qualifier to use to describe this.
> What happens in a torsion-block is simply that the
> commas which describe the mapping produce duplicate maps.
>
> For example:
>
> Let's say we want to map 5-limit JI (i.e., 2-3-5-space,
> with 2/1 as the identity interval) to 36-edo.
>
> If we try to use the "best-fit" mapping, meaning that we
> map the 3/2 ratio to 21 degrees (= 700 cents) and the 5/4
> ratio to 12 degrees (= 400 cents), we get a torsion-block,
> because all of the 5-limit JI pitches will map to a 12-tone
> subset of 36-edo which is exactly the same as 12-edo, and
> the other 24 notes of 36-edo will never correspond to any
> of the 5-limit JI pitches. The Tenny-Minkowski-reduced-basis
> pair of unison-vectors (i.e., "commas") which will create
> this torsion-block are:
>
> 2,3,5-monzo ........ ratio ....... ~cents
> ------------------------------------------
> [7 0, -3> ......... 128/125 ...... 41.059
> [-12 12, -3> ... 531441/512000 ... 64.518
>
>
> The monzo notation of the larger unison-vector
> shows you right away where the torsion comes from:
> [-12 12, -3> = ([-4 4, -1>) * 3. Thus, it is a
> "triple-syntonic-comma".
>
>
> However, if we deliberately use a different mapping,
> where the 3/2 is still mapped to 21 degrees of 36-edo,
> but the 5/4 ratio maps to 11 degrees (= 367.&.2/3 cents),
> we can get the full 36-tone set mapped uniquely to
> 5-limit JI. Thus we get a "normal" periodicity-block
> instead of a torsion-block, and the torsion is removed.
> The TM-reduced-basis unison-vectors for this mapping are:
>
> 2,3,5-monzo ........ ratio ....... ~cents
> ------------------------------------------
> [1 -5, 3> ......... 250/243 ....... 49.166
> [-17 2, 6> ..... 140625/131072 ... 121.792
>
>
> Many theorists will fail to see the value in creating
> a tuning like this, with a whopping big "unison-vector"
> that's larger than a 12-edo semitone ... but i can tell
> you from personal experience that it does create an
> emulation of 5-limit JI that's audibly recognizable
> as such, at least enough so that many important harmonic
> principles which apply to 5-limit JI also apply to this
> way of using 36-edo.
>
>
> So, "unwanted" is correct from the point of view of
> wanting to be able to produce a mapping of the complete
> edo set. But if you're OK with using a subset and still
> claiming that your tuning is really the superset (which
> probably *isn't* the right way to go about things anyway)
> ... then you might want to qualify it a different way.
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software

Thanks this is a really good description of torsion (and fixing it).
Now I just have to figure out how you found your TM-reduced commas.
>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:

> Thanks this is a really good description of torsion
> (and fixing it). Now I just have to figure out how you
> found your TM-reduced commas.

Simple ... i just used Tonescape.

;-)

If you create a new Tonespace, and choose a cardinality
which Tonescape tells you "the val is torsional", then
you have the choice of either creating your 12-edo * 3
torsion-block, or choosing "remove torsion", which
finds the next-best mapping which is not torsional.

http://tonalsoft.com/support/tonescape/tut-tonespace.aspx

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:

> Thanks this is a really good description of torsion
> (and fixing it). Now I just have to figure out how you
> found your TM-reduced commas.

Simple ... i just used Tonescape.

;-)

http://tonalsoft.com/support/tonescape/tut-tonespace.aspx

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks this is a really good description of torsion
> > (and fixing it). Now I just have to figure out how you
> > found your TM-reduced commas.
>
>
>
> Simple ... i just used Tonescape.
>
> ;-)
>
>
> If you create a new Tonespace, and choose a cardinality
> which Tonescape tells you "the val is torsional",

How can Tonescape determine that just from the cardinality? As you
just showed, some vals for a cardinality of 36 are torsional while
others aren't.

> then
> you have the choice of either creating your 12-edo * 3
> torsion-block, or choosing "remove torsion", which
> finds the next-best mapping which is not torsional.

Next-best? How do you determine the best?

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> > <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks this is a really good description of torsion
> > > (and fixing it). Now I just have to figure out how you
> > > found your TM-reduced commas.
> >
> >
> > Simple ... i just used Tonescape.
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > If you create a new Tonespace, and choose a cardinality
> > which Tonescape tells you "the val is torsional",
>
> How can Tonescape determine that just from the cardinality?
> As you just showed, some vals for a cardinality of 36 are
> torsional while others aren't.

When you are creating a Tonespace, if you have the "Basis"
check-box checked, Tonescape will find the TM-reduced-basis
unison-vectors and list them as the unison-vectors available
for the boundaries of the Tonespace's periodicity-block.

If the TM-reduced-basis vectors contain torsion, then
Tonescape will anounce the fact, and the user is given
the option of using the next-best mapping (in terms of
TM-reduction) which will not have torsion.

If, on the other hand, the user unchecks the "Basis" box
before selecting the Cardinality, then a large number
of potential unison-vectors are listed and the user may
choose a number of unison-vectors up to the dimensionality
of the Tonespace lattice.

(The number of potential unison-vectors is theoretically
infinite, so obviously we had to choose some way to limit
the number in the list. The limits we set are arbitrarily
chosen ... i have to ask Chris about it, but i think it's
based on maximum cents values. If anyone out there can
offer a better limitation criterion, we'll use it.)

> > then you have the choice of either creating your
> > 12-edo * 3 torsion-block, or choosing "remove torsion",
> > which finds the next-best mapping which is not
> > torsional.
>
> Next-best? How do you determine the best?

TM-reduced-basis.

(I sure wished you'd take up our offer and come on board
as a Tonescape alpha-tester.)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> > > <paul_hjelmstad@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks this is a really good description of torsion
> > > > (and fixing it). Now I just have to figure out how you
> > > > found your TM-reduced commas.
> > >
> > >
> > > Simple ... i just used Tonescape.
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > If you create a new Tonespace, and choose a cardinality
> > > which Tonescape tells you "the val is torsional",
> >
> > How can Tonescape determine that just from the cardinality?
> > As you just showed, some vals for a cardinality of 36 are
> > torsional while others aren't.
>
>
> When you are creating a Tonespace, if you have the "Basis"
> check-box checked, Tonescape will find the TM-reduced-basis
> unison-vectors and list them as the unison-vectors available
> for the boundaries of the Tonespace's periodicity-block.

But this assumes a particular val! So you didn't answer my question.

> If the TM-reduced-basis vectors contain torsion, then
> Tonescape will anounce the fact, and the user is given
> the option of using the next-best mapping (in terms of
> TM-reduction)

Excuse me -- may I ask: If it's the TM reduction that determines
which mapping is considered "second-best", then am I right to assume
that it's also TM reduction that determines which mapping is
considered "best"? And if so, HOW???

> which will not have torsion.
>
>
> If, on the other hand, the user unchecks the "Basis" box
> before selecting the Cardinality, then a large number
> of potential unison-vectors are listed and the user may
> choose a number of unison-vectors up to the dimensionality
> of the Tonespace lattice.
>
> (The number of potential unison-vectors is theoretically
> infinite, so obviously we had to choose some way to limit
> the number in the list. The limits we set are arbitrarily
> chosen ... i have to ask Chris about it, but i think it's
> based on maximum cents values. If anyone out there can
> offer a better limitation criterion, we'll use it.)

Of course! See my "Middle Path" paper which I sent you.

> > > then you have the choice of either creating your
> > > 12-edo * 3 torsion-block, or choosing "remove torsion",
> > > which finds the next-best mapping which is not
> > > torsional.
> >
> > Next-best? How do you determine the best?
>
>
> TM-reduced-basis.

Again, how does the TM-reduced-basis of the various mappings allow
you to determine which mapping is the "best"??

> (I sure wished you'd take up our offer and come on board
> as a Tonescape alpha-tester.)

I sure wish you had made it possible for me to test it on my
computer, and also wish that you had not ignored so very many of my
messages here recently as well as not-so-recently, especially while
(as I just found out) you continue to make additions to your
Encyclopedia!

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Paul,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> Excuse me -- may I ask: If it's the TM reduction that
> determines which mapping is considered "second-best",
> then am I right to assume that it's also TM reduction
> that determines which mapping is considered "best"?
> And if so, HOW???

Gene posted on this list how he determined the TM-reduced
basis, and i included it here:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/t/tm-basis.aspx

The normal mapping is for Tonescape to send p^1 for
a prime _p_ to the edo degree nearest in pitch to p^1.

If that mapping is torsional, then the user may choose
to "remove torsion" and Tonescape will examine the
next-closest-in-pitch mapping of p^1 and use it if it
not torsional, or continue looking until it finds a
mapping which is not torsional.

> > (The number of potential unison-vectors is theoretically
> > infinite, so obviously we had to choose some way to limit
> > the number in the list. The limits we set are arbitrarily
> > chosen ... i have to ask Chris about it, but i think it's
> > based on maximum cents values. If anyone out there can
> > offer a better limitation criterion, we'll use it.)
>
> Of course! See my "Middle Path" paper which I sent you.

I really have to sit down with that again someday and
take a good hard look at it. IIRC, your criteria are
based on the maximum Tenney-height error ... do i have
that right?

> > > > then you have the choice of either creating your
> > > > 12-edo * 3 torsion-block, or choosing "remove torsion",
> > > > which finds the next-best mapping which is not
> > > > torsional.
> > >
> > > Next-best? How do you determine the best?
> >
> >
> > TM-reduced-basis.
>
> Again, how does the TM-reduced-basis of the various
> mappings allow you to determine which mapping is the
> "best"??

By "best" i mean closest in pitch.

> > (I sure wished you'd take up our offer and come on board
> > as a Tonescape alpha-tester.)
>
> I sure wish you had made it possible for me to test it
> on my computer,

I was ready and waiting for you to ask me to help you
install it! Contact me offlist if you're still eager.

> and also wish that you had not ignored so very many
> of my messages here recently as well as not-so-recently,
> especially while (as I just found out) you continue to
> make additions to your Encyclopedia!

Sorry. I was only been visiting the lists sporadically
for several months until just a few weeks ago. If it
seems that i ignored your mesages, it's only because
i never read them. I always do try to respond whenever
i see posts addressing me directly.

I have made a few additions to the Encyclopedia recently,
but they've been very minimal. I've really been spending
a lot of time just working on Tonescape. The upcoming
test release, due out in the next few days, will be able
to create an mp3 of your microtonal composition. This is
a huge leap forward beyond the MIDI exportation that
Tonescape provided before (and still does).

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
>
> > Excuse me -- may I ask: If it's the TM reduction that
> > determines which mapping is considered "second-best",
> > then am I right to assume that it's also TM reduction
> > that determines which mapping is considered "best"?
> > And if so, HOW???
>
>
> Gene posted on this list how he determined the TM-reduced
> basis, and i included it here:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/t/tm-basis.aspx
>
> The normal mapping is for Tonescape to send p^1 for
> a prime _p_ to the edo degree nearest in pitch to p^1.

Ah, I think that answers my question. Well, I feel that's
unfortunate, as Graham, myself, and others feel that quite often,
there's a better mapping than this.

> If that mapping is torsional, then the user may choose
> to "remove torsion" and Tonescape will examine the
> next-closest-in-pitch mapping of p^1

For which p?

> and use it if it
> not torsional, or continue looking until it finds a
> mapping which is not torsional.

I'd think you'd be better served ranking the mappings by some
criterion (preferably Tenney- or Kees-based, since you're using TM
reduction which is basically the same as KM reduction).

> > > (The number of potential unison-vectors is theoretically
> > > infinite, so obviously we had to choose some way to limit
> > > the number in the list. The limits we set are arbitrarily
> > > chosen ... i have to ask Chris about it, but i think it's
> > > based on maximum cents values. If anyone out there can
> > > offer a better limitation criterion, we'll use it.)
> >
> > Of course! See my "Middle Path" paper which I sent you.
>
>
> I really have to sit down with that again someday and
> take a good hard look at it. IIRC, your criteria are
> based on the maximum Tenney-height error ... do i have
> that right?

If you replace "Tenney-height" with "Tenney-weighted", then yes,
that's one of the criteria in my paper. Another is the Tenney
distance in the lattice.

> > > (I sure wished you'd take up our offer and come on board
> > > as a Tonescape alpha-tester.)
> >
> > I sure wish you had made it possible for me to test it
> > on my computer,
>
>
> I was ready and waiting for you to ask me to help you
> install it!

I did that, quite a while ago, and was waiting for you guys to figure
out how to do it without an internet connection. Last you told me, it
couldn't be done.

>Contact me offlist if you're still eager.

I am.

> > and also wish that you had not ignored so very many
> > of my messages here recently as well as not-so-recently,
> > especially while (as I just found out) you continue to
> > make additions to your Encyclopedia!
>
>
> Sorry. I was only been visiting the lists sporadically
> for several months until just a few weeks ago. If it
> seems that i ignored your mesages, it's only because
> i never read them. I always do try to respond whenever
> i see posts addressing me directly.

Well, you didn't, and my posts came in immediate response to yours.
I've long ago given up on e-mailing you directly, too. What would you
suggest?

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Excuse me -- may I ask: If it's the TM reduction that
> > > determines which mapping is considered "second-best",
> > > then am I right to assume that it's also TM reduction
> > > that determines which mapping is considered "best"?
> > > And if so, HOW???
> >
> >
> > Gene posted on this list how he determined the TM-reduced
> > basis, and i included it here:
> >
> > http://tonalsoft.com/enc/t/tm-basis.aspx
> >
> > The normal mapping is for Tonescape to send p^1 for
> > a prime _p_ to the edo degree nearest in pitch to p^1.
>
> Ah, I think that answers my question. Well, I feel that's
> unfortunate, as Graham, myself, and others feel that quite often,
> there's a better mapping than this.

Really? Why? Please elaborate.

To answer your other questions, i'll have to talk
to Chris. We've moved so far beyond the tuning engine
of Tonescape that it's ancient history by now ... we're
neck-deep in digital instruments and mp3 generation now.

> > I was ready and waiting for you to ask me to help you
> > install it!
>
> I did that, quite a while ago, and was waiting for you guys
> to figure out how to do it without an internet connection.
> Last you told me, it couldn't be done.

You have to be connected to the internet to activate
your copy of Tonescape. After that's done, you can
disconnect and stay disconnected if you wish.
But there is no other way to get it started.

I hope we can work this out, because i personally want
you, Paul, as an alpha-tester more than just about anyone else.
(no offense to anyone else intended)

> I've long ago given up on e-mailing you directly, too.
> What would you suggest?

Emailing me directly is still the best way to contact me,
other than a phone call. But i am too busy with Tonescape
to do much work on Encyclopedia pages right now.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> > The only thing holding up the next test-release of
> > Tonescape now is that we need to create some really
> > good digital instruments. Otherwise, it's making mp3's
> > and is ready to go.
>
> Are you going to allow it to produce wav files also?

Our focus is to make mp3's ... but i don't think there's
any real reason why we can't produce wav's too, because
Tonescape has to make the wav first, then convert it to mp3.
I guess we can just leave wav in as an option.

And yes, ogg is in our future too.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Carl and Gene,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> You're much better off to save your energy and let folks
> compress to whatever format they want. No need to reinvent
> the wheel. Meanwhile, not having wav out would be a
> catastrophe, since the files could not be edited without
> causing serious quality loss. mp3 and ogg are *not*
> mastering formats!!

Sorry, i got that a bit muddled, because the version of
Tonescape i personally have, just like the one Gene has,
only exports MIDI. My partner Chris is the only person
who has the latest version.

Tonescape (Chris's copy) currently can convert .tonescape
files into .wav, .aiff, .mp3, and .mid -- and .ogg is the
next format we'll implement.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >
> > >The only thing holding up the next test-release of
> > >Tonescape now is that we need to create some really
> > >good digital instruments.
> >
> > Is that all? Have you considered an sf2 loader?
>
> Or even easier, making a seq file.

I guess we'll look into that too ... but our main
concern right now is to give the user the ability
to go from microtonal musical idea (in his/her mind)
to mp3 (on PC hard-drive, Ipod, etc.) using Tonescape
and nothing else.

> However, the new digital instruments are likely to
> get me to really try to compose something with Tonescape.

That's our goal!

Eventually, we want to use digital synthesis for the
instruments as much as possible ... but for the purposes
of getting version 1.0 out the door, we'll be relying
heavily on high-quality sampled sounds.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> >> >The only thing holding up the next test-release of
>> >> >Tonescape now is that we need to create some really
>> >> >good digital instruments.
>> >>
>> >> Is that all? Have you considered an sf2 loader?
>> >
>> >Or even easier, making a seq file.
>>
>> You mean a Scala seq file? Can scala render seq + sf2
>> into wav?
>
>No, but Timidity can render midi + sf2 into wav. The point of turning it
>into a seq file is that this would be easy. It would be even easier if
>I can get Manuel to implement generator-based tunings, which I am
>hoping he will do anyway.

It would be even easier if we didn't have to use Timidity,
which is teh sux. If monz wants to add synthesis support,
and it seems like a good idea given the poor microtonal
support of most synthesizers, one of th easiest things to
do would be to build something like Timidity (but which is
not teh sux) into Tonescape. Then he wouldn't have to spend
time designing samples, since a wealth of great sf2 samples
can be had for free. The other easyish thing would be to
find out which softsynths are microtuning-capable, and make
Tonescape a VST host. He could consult with Rick McGowan,
who's done excellent research into Garritan's tunability,
and with XJ Scott, who supports a number of fab synths with
his LMSO, and with John Loffink, who does seem to be making
a continuous effort with microtonal-synthesis.com.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich"
<perlich@a...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excuse me -- may I ask: If it's the TM reduction that
> > > > determines which mapping is considered "second-best",
> > > > then am I right to assume that it's also TM reduction
> > > > that determines which mapping is considered "best"?
> > > > And if so, HOW???
> > >
> > >
> > > Gene posted on this list how he determined the TM-reduced
> > > basis, and i included it here:
> > >
> > > http://tonalsoft.com/enc/t/tm-basis.aspx
> > >
> > > The normal mapping is for Tonescape to send p^1 for
> > > a prime _p_ to the edo degree nearest in pitch to p^1.
> >
> > Ah, I think that answers my question. Well, I feel that's
> > unfortunate, as Graham, myself, and others feel that quite often,
> > there's a better mapping than this.
>
>
> Really? Why? Please elaborate.

There are often mappings which yield lower overall error. Overall
error can be evaluated following Woolhouse, R. Smith, Kees v. P.,
Tenney-weighting, etc., but in many cases *none* of these methods
give your mapping lowest error. For example, we've discussed 64-
equal . . .

> Emailing me directly is still the best way to contact me,
> other than a phone call. But i am too busy with Tonescape
> to do much work on Encyclopedia pages right now.

Yet I noticed you are doing some, but it seems to me that you're not
concerned at all with *improving* it right now . . . and I don't know
how to go about helping you with this other than the ways I've
already tried . . . but I'll give you a call when I get a chance.

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> >> >> > The only thing holding up the next test-release of
> >> >> > Tonescape now is that we need to create some really
> >> >> > good digital instruments.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that all? Have you considered an sf2 loader?
> >> >
> >> > Or even easier, making a seq file.
> >>
> >> You mean a Scala seq file? Can scala render seq + sf2
> >> into wav?
> >
> > No, but Timidity can render midi + sf2 into wav. The
> > point of turning it into a seq file is that this would
> > be easy. It would be even easier if I can get Manuel
> > to implement generator-based tunings, which I am
> > hoping he will do anyway.
>
> It would be even easier if we didn't have to use Timidity,
> which is teh sux.

What in the world is "teh sux"?

> If monz wants to add synthesis support,
> and it seems like a good idea given the poor microtonal
> support of most synthesizers, one of th easiest things to
> do would be to build something like Timidity (but which is
> not teh sux) into Tonescape. Then he wouldn't have to spend
> time designing samples, since a wealth of great sf2 samples
> can be had for free. The other easyish thing would be to
> find out which softsynths are microtuning-capable, and make
> Tonescape a VST host. He could consult with Rick McGowan,
> who's done excellent research into Garritan's tunability,
> and with XJ Scott, who supports a number of fab synths with
> his LMSO, and with John Loffink, who does seem to be making
> a continuous effort with microtonal-synthesis.com.

*All* of this is coming, down the road. I just want to
emphasize that "Tonalsoft" basically means "monz and Chris".
We don't have a team of 50 developers who can hammer
out our product in a year and make it do everything.
It's just the two of us (with a few hired guns here
and there to take care of specific duties), and it's
going to take time to incorporate all of the features
that we want to include.

For release 1.0, Tonescape will not be able to interface
with any hardware other than the PC on which it is installed.
But as i said, the user *will* be able to compose a
microtonal piece, from inception in his/her mind, to
.wav (and CD) and/or mp3. And of course, in the native
.tonescape format, the real-time lattice view is a
big feature.

The biggest thing that we had to chuck for release 1.0,
for me, was staff notation. But we decided that .wav and
mp3 support was more important for release 1.0 than
staff notation.

We've had to draw many lines in the sand in order to
get this thing out the door ... and even with those
boundaries, we're still more than a year behind schedule
for our proposed release date. At this point, we're
determined to have it out on the market by February 2006
and no later.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Paul,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> > [monz]
> > Emailing me directly is still the best way to contact me,
> > other than a phone call. But i am too busy with Tonescape
> > to do much work on Encyclopedia pages right now.
>
> Yet I noticed you are doing some, but it seems to me that
> you're not concerned at all with *improving* it right now
> . . . and I don't know how to go about helping you with
> this other than the ways I've already tried . . . but I'll
> give you a call when I get a chance.

Of course i'm concerned with improving the Encyclopedia.
Just real caught up in a lot of other stuff right now.
I've tried to make corrections of some glaring errors
on the Encyclopedia pages, but just don't have much time
to work on it.

By all means, if you know of blantant errors, please
send me corrections and i'll do my best to fix them.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> >> >> > The only thing holding up the next test-release of
>> >> >> > Tonescape now is that we need to create some really
>> >> >> > good digital instruments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is that all? Have you considered an sf2 loader?
>> >> >
>> >> > Or even easier, making a seq file.
>> >>
>> >> You mean a Scala seq file? Can scala render seq + sf2
>> >> into wav?
>> >
>> > No, but Timidity can render midi + sf2 into wav. The
>> > point of turning it into a seq file is that this would
>> > be easy. It would be even easier if I can get Manuel
>> > to implement generator-based tunings, which I am
>> > hoping he will do anyway.
>>
>> It would be even easier if we didn't have to use Timidity,
>> which is teh sux.
>
>What in the world is "teh sux"?

Slang for "it sucks".

>> If monz wants to add synthesis support,
>> and it seems like a good idea given the poor microtonal
>> support of most synthesizers, one of th easiest things to
>> do would be to build something like Timidity (but which is
>> not teh sux) into Tonescape. Then he wouldn't have to spend
>> time designing samples, since a wealth of great sf2 samples
>> can be had for free. The other easyish thing would be to
>> find out which softsynths are microtuning-capable, and make
>> Tonescape a VST host. He could consult with Rick McGowan,
>> who's done excellent research into Garritan's tunability,
>> and with XJ Scott, who supports a number of fab synths with
>> his LMSO, and with John Loffink, who does seem to be making
>> a continuous effort with microtonal-synthesis.com.
>
>*All* of this is coming, down the road. I just want to
>emphasize that "Tonalsoft" basically means "monz and Chris".
>We don't have a team of 50 developers who can hammer
>out our product in a year and make it do everything.

Exactly my point. Even if you had 50 developers, you
shouldn't do *all* of it. You should focus on what
your product is, and not dilute your precious time re-
inventing the wheel.

>It's just the two of us (with a few hired guns here
>and there to take care of specific duties), and it's
>going to take time to incorporate all of the features
>that we want to include.
>
>For release 1.0, Tonescape will not be able to interface
>with any hardware other than the PC on which it is installed.
>But as i said, the user *will* be able to compose a
>microtonal piece, from inception in his/her mind, to
>.wav (and CD) and/or mp3. And of course, in the native
>.tonescape format, the real-time lattice view is a
>big feature.

Right, you want to produce audio files, but how will you
do it? That's what I was exploring above.

>The biggest thing that we had to chuck for release 1.0,
>for me, was staff notation. But we decided that .wav and
>mp3 support was more important for release 1.0 than
>staff notation.

Agreed. But so you've already had to chuck something.
And I knew from the beginning (and I told you at the
time) staff notation wouldn't make it into 1.0. Now,
wouldn't it make sense to implement audio out in the
easiest possible way?

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
>
> > > [monz]
> > > Emailing me directly is still the best way to contact me,
> > > other than a phone call. But i am too busy with Tonescape
> > > to do much work on Encyclopedia pages right now.
> >
> > Yet I noticed you are doing some, but it seems to me that
> > you're not concerned at all with *improving* it right now
> > . . . and I don't know how to go about helping you with
> > this other than the ways I've already tried . . . but I'll
> > give you a call when I get a chance.
>
>
> Of course i'm concerned with improving the Encyclopedia.
> Just real caught up in a lot of other stuff right now.
> I've tried to make corrections of some glaring errors
> on the Encyclopedia pages, but just don't have much time
> to work on it.

I see evidence that you've been adding new pages! It's bothersome,
let me tell ya . . .

> By all means, if you know of blantant errors, please
> send me corrections and i'll do my best to fix them.

How would you prefer I send them to you? In the past I've tried a
number of your e-mail addresses, as well as posting to these lists.
Please tell me what will be most likely to get your attention this
time around.